1

Alternate Admission System for Engineering Programmes in India

Expert Committee

T. Ramasami Ashok Thacker

D. Acharya B.K. Gairola Mukul Tuli P. Arora

Submitted to

Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India

September, 2011

2

Background The current system based on multiples of entrance examinations for admission into

engineering programmes has no parallel in other parts of the world. Most nations

employ just one test, mostly, for assessment of scholastic aptitude instead of a

plethora of evaluation tests.

The current selection systems in India have, no doubt, resulted in visible benefits;

but, the future of Indian youth might need a paradigm shift in admission systems in

engineering programmes for ensuring opportunity for larger sections of the society.

The extreme level of competitiveness in the screening processes employed for

deciding access to professional education is not without its psychological or

sociological implications for the society. They do influence the mindset and

behavioural changes among the youth.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development is grappled with the need to design

and develop an alternative to the current systems of multiple examinations for

deciding admission of students to the engineering programmes in the country. A

committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Professor D Acharya, Director

IIT Kharagpur. The Acharya Committee presented in its interim report an alternative

to the present examination system for admission into engineering colleges, including

IITs. While there was unanimity that the present examination system of JEE and

AIEEE etc has to change to reduce the burden on students on account of the

multiplicity of entrance examinations, there was emphasis that any new system has

to recognize the diversity of learning within the country.

In order to address comprehensively the reality of diversity of learning within the

country, the Ministry enlarged the committee with Dr T Ramasami, Secretary,

Department of Science and Technology, Government of India as the Chair and Prof

Acharya as the expert member from IIT. The enlarged committee consisted of some

alumni of IITs including one who passed from an IIT within the last five years. The

composition of the committee is as given in Annexure 1.

3

Underlying Philosophy behind Alternatives to current Test Scheme Unity in diversity is the Indian brand value. Unification, while retaining the diversity

of educational and learning systems in the country is the underlying strategy of the

proposed alternative Test Scheme for deciding admission into engineering colleges,

including IITs in the country. An overarching philosophy behind development test

schemes taking for reducing the multiplicity of entrance examinations is presented in

Annexure 2.

Lessons from Acharya Committee Report The interim report of the Acharya Committee Annexure 3 formed the main basis on

which this alternative test scheme for engineering colleges including IITs has now

been developed. Some key recommendations of Acharya committee are:

Screening based on normalized Board scores at Standard X and/or Standard XII and Multiple Choice examination replacing the two stage JEE from 2006.

Entry barrier is to be raised to 60% in the +2 examinations.

Factors, other than the Standard XII marks and All India Rank (AIR) based on Physics, Chemistry and Maths (PCM) testing, such as raw intelligence, logical

reasoning, aptitude, comprehension and general knowledge need to be

considered.

Need to factor in school performance more significantly into the selection process.

From the discussions held by this committee the following additional desirable

features of the admission process were identified:

Decision based on one time test needs to be re-examined. Opportunities to improve must be built in.

Students must be relieved of the pressure of multiple JEEs. Currently a student appears on an average at 5 JEEs all within a few days of the Board

Examinations.

Influence of coaching for JEE needs to be minimised.

4

Urban-rural and gender bias has to be eliminated or at least minimised.

The objective type of examination lends itself to undue influence of coaching. The conventional pen and paper examination with well designed long and

problem solving oriented questions should be revived by keeping numbers in

any JEE within reasonable limits.

JEEs, especially the IIT-JEE, have become a huge money spinning activity for coaching centres with attendant undesirable consequences.

Recognising the realities of the current situation in admission system in engineering programmes The present system of multiple competitive examinations, as observed by Acharya

Committee has emerged because of the large demand-supply gap in access to high-

quality education in engineering discipline and unevenness in levels of excellence in

education in various centres. Diversity challenge associated with various school

boards is one of the reasons for the emergence of multiples of entrance

examinations for deciding admission into engineering programmes.

It must be recognised that some competitive examinations, such as for example,

joint entrance examination conducted by the IITs have proved their process integrity

and gained global acclaim. IIT-JEE is a proven system that works. AIEEE is another

large scale entrance examination which has gained social acceptance of high levels.

Any alternative proposed should match the process integrity and robustness of JEE

and AIEEE.

Since millions of talented youngsters compete for less than tens of thousands of

slots in elite engineering institutions, the use of high band filters like IIT-JEE or

AIEEE may, perhaps, seem essential.

Nevertheless, even while it must be recognised that most high performers in such

competitive examinations are extremely talented, it is not clear as to whether IIT-JEE

type examinations are not missing a section of talent base, which should not be

missed.

5

Concerns are expressed that the guessing behaviour could be promoted among

students seeking admission into engineering programmes by the models being

employed by the current examination systems. Psychological and sociological

dimensions of such testing and evaluation systems that focus on extremely narrow-

width high band-filters are not unimportant. The unintended consequences of

asymmetries in the types of clientele and challenges of social behaviour mooted by

such extremes cannot be discounted.

Vast majority of youth living in smaller towns and far flung places as well as

economically weaker segments of society are not able to join the competitive stream

today. For the youth, the future seems to be decided just by success or otherwise in

one competitive examination or other. The present system seems to be unwittingly

promoting a societal behaviour and a mind set towards differentiation rather than

integration.

Alternative test schemes for admission: What should they aim at?

The Alternative Test Scheme should ideally

1. evaluate the ability of the learners rather than their preparedness and

competitiveness

2. reveal in a transparent, the latent potentials of the learners to match the emerging

opportunities in engineering education sector and link to the development of

National economy

3. aim to provide for more proportional representation of various regions and parent

income levels without causing rural-urban divides

4. reduce the burden of education administration on faculty in elite engineering

institutions so that their higher participation in research and academic roles could

be further facilitated

6

5. match the rigour and process integration of best global models into the currently

employed admission systems in engineering programmes in the country and

6. Offer opportunities to retain the unity in diversity principle of the country by

permitting scientific methods of providing allowance to scholastic performances in

various board examinations into deciding admission criteria into engineering

programmes in the country.

Process adopted for the developing the Alternative Test Scheme Education is much too important for any committee to overlook the consequences of

inadvertent errors in decision making. Therefore, the committee chose to engage as

many stakeholders as possible in designing the Alternative Test Scheme for

admission into engineering programmes.

There are many state school boards which conduct their own examination for

assessing their students for issuing certificates. Shear diversity of these

examinations pose challenges of normalization and deciding eligibility for admission

into national centres of excellence.

The multiplicity of competitive examinations leading to duplicity of efforts may be a

direct result of diversities and complexities involved in the evaluation of inter-

comparison of scoring systems of various school boards. As a result, most elite

institutions disregard the performance in school examinations. They develop their

own competitive test methods and depend too heavily on ranks and scores.

Consistency of performance in different examinations is not considered necessary.

Performance in single examination starts to influence the entire career opportunities

leading to social implications.

While competitive examinations of the types of IIT-JEE etc based on multiple choices

and negative scoring are celebrated, a recent analysis points out inherent limitations

7

of such systems on the one hand and the benefits of non-negative scoring methods

on the other. (See Karandikar, Current Science, 99, No 8, 25th October 2010)

Alternative admission systems for engineering programmes should find innovative

ways of retaining the diversity of many school boards and yet derive value from the

test scores for making decisions by educational institutions. Such an innovation

seems now possible and realistic. In order to select best possible alternatives, a wide

spread consultations and a research study were undertaken.

Consultation

Several consultations with stake holders were made. The process of consultation

included those with

1. Public through opinion poll

2. States and school boards

3. Educators from elite institutions like IITs

4. Professional Experts in Evidence-based criteria selection and

5. Statistical experts for a Modeling Study for reconstruction of past Scenario

Research Plan

Past data of scores in examinations of different school boards were sourced and

analyzed for designing methods for normalization based on sound statistical tools.

Evidence based and objective criteria for assessing the inter-operability of test

scores of various school boards have been examined by availing the professional

help of experts. Different statistical models have been constructed and investigated

for reliability and ease of implementation. Systems of evaluation based on

technology tools have been prioritized.

Interim report of the Acharya committee has made some important observations and

recommendations on Alternative Test System (Annexure 3) after their own research

findings. Some attempt has been made to reconstruct past scenario using data on

students who have passed entrance examinations of IIT-JEE during the last five

years.

8

The committee recommends also a research study involving a pilot test among a

select group of students and evaluation of various test models for minimizing number

of examinations but not rigor and challenge. It is considered necessary to consult

also experts in social sciences in devising a system of reporting test results which

ensures sufficient inputs to institutions for decision making and selection of the

candidates without leading to negative psychological and sociological outcomes on

the youth.

Public Participation in Opinion Survey

On-line opinion survey was carried out among the people of India and public

opinions were sought on current competitive examination systems, employed for

admission into engineering programmes. Specific views were sought on:

Multi parametric grading system as against single test models and

Screening out as against selection strategies

A special questionnaire, presented in Annexure 4, was designed and hosted on the

national portal of India website maintained by NIC. The survey period remained

open for three weeks during 1st and 21st June 2011. More than 2000 people

responded to the study. Social network through face book was also established.

There were about 400 hits for face book. Detailed report of findings from public

opinion has been presented in Annexure 5.

The survey sought also information on responder profiles and opinion polls on

various models and suggestions for alternative national test systems and on risk

mitigation strategies for implementation. Suggestions received are complied in the

report on public opinion presented in Annexure 5.

Analysis and Internalization of Some Key Recommendations emanating from Pubic Opinion

An overwhelming majority of respondents (more than 70%) for the public opinion poll

express their support for Alternative Test Schemes recommending avoidance of

multiples of entrance examinations for admission into engineering education in the

country. Support is evidenced from public opinion for a) weighing in some

9

transparent manner scores obtained in school board examinations, b) a mix of

aptitude (like Scholastic Aptitude Test, SAT of USA) and advanced test (like IIT Joint

Entrance Examination), c) offering more than one chance for candidates to take the

National Level Test and d) conducting the national level test more than once in each

year.

One of the serious concerns expressed by public with respect to both National Level

Test and School Board Examinations is the level of process integrity in setting the

question papers and in the conduct of the examinations. These are presented in

Annexure 5.

Consultation and Cooperation with School Boards

Consultations were made with school boards for seeking permission for access to

data access and enrolment of boards for undertaking research. An attempt was

made to learn the concerns of states and school boards. The committee believes

that it is necessary to build social trust for the alternative admission systems among

the stake holders. Innovations are required for managing the diversity challenges of

school board scores before they could be employed for deriving inputs for alternative

systems to admission systems in elite engineering institutions like IITs.

Consultation with faculty of Elite Institutions and Opinion Leaders in Academic Bodies

Consultation with faculty of some elite institutions and opinion leaders in academic

bodies has been made in the process of development of an alternative admission

system. This consultation process, at various stages, focused on a) learning about

their concerns, b) gathering experience, c) debating alternatives and d) building trust.

The faculty and Directors of IITs participated in the selection of various approaches.

Results of the public opinion survey were presented to a committee of Directors of

IITs. A copy of report contained in Annexure 5 was provided to Directors of IITs for

their study. The committee believes that enrolment of faculty involved in some of the

competitive examinations is critical because they form truly important share holders.

10

The consultation attempted to a) address the concerns of senior faculty, b) test some

of the hypothesis, c) convince faculty with opposite views, if any, and d) enroll some

of the faculty in implementation work.

Research on Examination Methodologies for Screening for Admission into engineering programmes

1. Work of experts of Indian Statistical Institute for normalization of scores

of various school boards

Selection of evidence-based and objective criteria is critical for the acceptance of

alternatives in preference to the currently established admission systems, which

enjoy a high level of acceptance of the stake holders and share holders. Application

of rigorous research methodologies based on open minded research has been

considered necessary. A team of experts was assembled to work on a time bound

manner. Evidence-based identification of criteria was the focus for development of

alternatives to the current admission systems.

One of the most important points considered necessary by both this committee and

Acharya Committee is that there should be a rigorous and scientific approach to

factor-in scores of school boards into admission systems for engineering

programmes in the country.

Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) the leading institution was assigned the task of

developing methods for normalization of data on scores emanating from a various

school boards. For the pilot testing of normalization concepts, data from Central

Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Tamil Nadu State School Board Examination

(TNSSBE), West Bengal State Board examination (WBSSBE) and Indian Council for

School Examination (ICSE) were selected. The findings of experts from ISI are

presented in Annexure 6 and 6A.

ISI carried out all the required research investigations. For the same school board,

data were analyzed as per equations 1 and 2.

X1 X2 eq. 1 X3 - X2

11

Where X1 = is the mark obtained by each candidate, X2 = is the mark of the selected percentile rank holder, X3= is the maximum mark scored by any candidate. In this correlation, scores will range between 0 and 1 as shown in Figure 1(Anenxure-6). In

the correlation of ratios of scores obtained by candidate and score of the percentile

cutoff selected as in Eq.2 seems to maintain linearity over a larger range as in Figure 2. (Anenxure-6).

X1 eq. 2 X2

Stability of scores of each board over different years was first tested out by

examining the profiles of percentile scores over a period of time. Experts of ISI

reported that through monotone transformation, it will be possible to map the profiles

of all boards onto one selected board and create a normalization routine. Profiles for

the four boards are presented in Figure 3 and 4 (Anenxure-6).

Normalized percentile ranks with different cut offs for all boards have been computed

(as for example 75%) as in eq 3

(Percentile rank of student 75) X 100 eq.3

100-75

When normalized percentile rank is correlated against percentile rank with say cut-

off at 75%, a linear relation is obtained as in Figure 5 (Annexure-6). Experts from ISI report that the same linear correlation as in Figure 5 (Annexure-6) will be the

same for any board for any year.

2. Some Recent Work on Selection of Types of Examinations for Screening

Recently Karandikar (Current Science, 99, no 8, October 2010, Annexure 7) has

analyzed the consequences of multiple choice tests and negative marking as

practiced recently in several screening examinations. Such methods are employed

also in the entrance examinations employed for admission into engineering

programmes in the country. Impact of marking schemes with negative scoring and

multiple choices has been examined using principles of statistics. Models were

12

postulated for distribution of marks and guessing behavior of the candidates when

they do not know the correct answer. The work has simulated statistical outcome of

such tests and probabilities of candidates who should not have been selected getting

selected because of random guessing. Probabilities of gate-crashing into the

selection list through multiple choice examinations with unique right answer and

negative marking have been examined.

The work highlights the value of traditional question-answer tests where the

candidate is required to write down the solution along with steps rather than

objective tests with multiple choices and one right answer. The work recommends

that if for practical reasons, screening tests were to resort to multiple choice tests

where evaluation is done through the use of computers, a better alternative would be

to design tests with more than one correct answers and give credits based on

students selecting all right answers and not select any wrong answer.

The recent work of Karandikar further reiterates and supports the position of the

Committee that some weighting of the school board examinations would be gainful.

Since School boards could deploy the traditional question-answer tests where a

candidate is required to write down solutions, any weighting scheme which allows

considerations for the scores obtained in school boards would be valuable based on

the recent work of Karandikar.

The merits of conducting objective tests based on multiple choices for testing

advanced knowledge of candidates for admission into education programmes are to

be evaluated in light of other factors as well. Whereas such tests are useful for

assessing the aptitude, proficiency in advanced knowledge is perhaps better tested

out through tests where the candidates are expected to write down the solutions, as

was the case in IIT-JEE in earlier years and school board examinations currently.

13

General Approach Suggested for Alternative Admission System for

engineering programmes

The committee suggests an approach to employ scores obtained by the same

candidate in different types of examinations rather than to rely entirely upon the

performance in one screening type examinations like IIT-JEE or AIEEE

Now that a reasonable model has been devised by professional experts from ISI for

normalization of score from different boards, the committee recommends one of the

two possible specific approaches.

Approach 1

weighing consistency of performance in school board examinations and

employ them for testing ability to write solutions and

One objective screening test with two sections; one for testing the aptitude

and the other advanced knowledge in domain areas.

Approach 2

weighing consistency of performance in school board examinations and

employ them for testing ability to write solutions and

one objective aptitude test based on multiple choices and computer based

correction systems

Objective tests for assessment of aptitude employing multiple choices and evaluation

using computer assisted testing could be designed in the general pattern of

Scholastic Aptitude Test of the USA.

Advanced tests for evaluating knowledge in domain areas could be designed and

fashioned in the shape of Joint Entrance Examination of IITs with one improvement

suggested by Karandikar, namely choices of answers bearing more than one right

answer and avoiding Gate-crashing of the wrong candidates into the selection list.

Both Aptitude and Advanced tests could be included in the same paper, giving the

option of choosing to take both aptitude and advanced knowledge or not to the

candidate.

14

Each candidate might be permitted a maximum of three chances to take the National

Level Screening Test. The committee recommends that National Level Screening

Test could be conducted at least twice a year.

Individual institutions could be given the liberty of choosing weighting factors for

different examinations within a specified guideline. For example, IITs could choose

about 40% weighting for school board scores and 30% each for aptitude and

advanced tests respectively whereas some other state based institution could weigh

school board scores as per the revised normalized system as high as 70% and

National Level Screening Aptitude test at 30%.

The committee believes that it is important to avoid multiple screening tests and

proportional weighting of multiple types of tests already being conducted which

would avoid outweighing one mode of testing, where preparedness and gate

crashing of non-ideal candidates could not be ruled out.

Suggestions for Factorizing Normalization of board scores into screening process

Aggregate percentage scores of candidates in class XII examination of their

respective boards could be first converted into percentile ranks of their own

respective boards and then normalized through percentile ranks as in eq.3 for

common cut off and each candidate is accorded normalized percentile rank

irrespective of the board which conducted the examination. This could be expressed

in the form of normalized grade for school board and termed as A1.

A similar exercise could be carried out also for the aggregate percentage in the

subject examinations of relevance to the higher education desired by the candidate

for example all science subjects for seeking admission into engineering and termed

as A2.

By according equal weighting to both aggregate percentages and subject scores,

half of (A1 + A2) could be computed for each candidate and A3 reported as

corresponding to class XII performance.

15

Performance at the National Level Screening Test in the aptitude section could be

evaluated separately and accorded a national score A4.

Performance at the National Level Screening Test in the advanced section could be

evaluated and each candidate is accorded a National score A5.

Suggestion of different options Option 1: Deployment of Scores as criteria based on class XII performance only

Equal weighting of school board scores A1and A2

Equal weighting of aptitude scores A4 and advanced scores A5 Normalized score = {A1 + A 2+A4 +A5}/4

Option 2: Deployment of Scores as criteria based on class XII performance only

Equal Weighting of board score A3

Equal Weighting of Aptitude scores A4 and A5

Normalized score ={A3 +A 4+A5}/3

Option 3: Deployment of Scores as criteria based on consistency of performance at class X and Class XII levels as well as in National Level

Aptitude and Advanced Tests

Equal weighting for aggregate as well as subject performance at class X

and Class XII levels where ) 0.1X (normalized score at class X in aggregate + normalized score at class X in subjects of choice + normalized score at class XII + normalized score at class XII in subjects of choice)

One third weighting of aptitude score 0.3 A4

One third weighting of advanced score 0.3 A5

Normalized score = 0.1{ Normalized aggregate class X + normalized class X subject score + Normalized class XII aggregate + Normalized class XII subject score} + 0.3 A3and 0.3 A5

16

Option 4: Deployment of School Board Performance as screening but not as determinant for National ranks

Specify a Cut-off normalized percentile rank score for school performance

say as 80 or 85 percentile rank

50% weighting of National Level Aptitude score A4 for candidates passing

the cut off of percentile rank

50% weighting of National Level Advanced Score A5 for candidates passing the

Normalized score = 0.5 A4 +0.5A5 Option 5: Deployment of School Board performance as subject score and National Level Aptitude Test as a combination and avoid the Advanced Testing system according freedom for the individual institutions to select mixing proportions within a pre-specified guideline

Option 6: Equal weighting of School Board performance as subject score and National Level Aptitude Test as objective test system where

Normalized score = 0.5 A2+0.5A4

Further Work Suggested 1. There are as many as 42 school boards in the country conducting examinations

at school levels. They conduct examinations in slightly varying schedules. Such

differing schedules may pose challenges. Some work may be required to align

the time schedules of board examinations and National Screening Tests.

2. Although ISI seems to have developed a scientific methodology for normalization

of school boards scores based on a pilot study involving four typical school

boards, it may be necessary to access data from all the 42 boards and test run

the findings of the experts of ISI.

17

3. It will be beneficial to apply the recommended methodology on candidates

selected for admission into IITs, NITs during the last four years using the data on

current students sourcing data from IIT-JEE and AIEEE as well as school boards

scores at class X and XII levels. This will help us ground truthing and revalidation

of proposed methods.

Recommendations of the Committee The committee makes the following recommendations for the consideration of the IIT

council

A. Normalization of School Board Scores

ISI has proposed a method for normalization of scores of candidates of various

school boards and demonstrated its potential to derive normalized scores. This

method seems to offer possibility to factorize performance in school board

examination as a criterion for merit-ranking of students for admission into higher

education.

ISI may be commissioned by IIT Council to further refine the methodology and

establish its potential by proving its utility for normalization of all board scores

over a period of time based on past data.

The method of ISI may be revalidated by some other institution as well for ease

of application

B. National Screening Test Scheme

One National Screening Test (NST) with two sections namely Aptitude and

Advanced could be designed and developed.

The test could be of 3.5 to 4 hour duration with an option for the candidates to opt

out of advanced test after examining the paper for say 15 minutes.

Aptitude test section could employ multiple choice questions which enable

evaluation using a computer

Advanced Test section could involve multiple choices with multiple right answers

and minimization of Gate-crashing by candidates with limited merit

An expert committee of educators could be constituted for designing best fit

models of National Screening Test methodologies

18

C. Testing and Evaluation related Organizational matters

IITs may be assigned the task of designing the Alternative Screening Test

While question papers may be set-up by experts drawn from educational

institutions like IITs, IISc, NITs etc, the logistics support for conducting and

evaluating examination papers may be assigned to a specialist organization

taking into account of the large scale of the operation and need for

professionalization. D. Enrollment of Policy Bodies

A project for creating past scenario may be commissioned to IITs, NITs and

leading universities based on employing methods developed through research.

E. Order of Preference of the Committee

The committee has considered various options. Some order of preference is

indicated for discussion and finalization by the council of IIT for making decisions.

Recommended order of Preference of options

1st Preference: Option 2 Equal weighting of school board scores at class XII (of both

aggregate and science scores) A3, national level aptitude, A4 and

Advanced A5 scores, {A3 + A4 + A5 }/3

2nd Preference: Option 6

Equal weighting of School Board performance as subject score and National Level Aptitude Test as objective test system;

0.5 A2+0.5A4

19

3rd Preference: Option 5

Deployment of School Board performance as subject score and National Level Aptitude Test as a combination and avoid the

Advanced Testing system according freedom for the individual institutions to select mixing proportions within a pre-specified

guideline

4th Preference: Option 4

Deployment of School Board Performance as screening but not

as determinant for National ranks (as for example Specified Cut-off: normalized percentile rank score for school performance say as 80 or 85 percentile rank) Equal weighting of National Level Aptitude score A4 for

candidates passing the cut off of percentile rank and Equal

weighting of National Level Advanced Score A5 for candidates passing the cut off of percentile rank; (0.5 A4 + 0.5A5 )

5th Preference: Option 1

Deployment of Scores as criteria based on class XII performance

Equal weighting of school board scores A1and A2 and Equal weighting of aptitude scores A4 and advanced scores A5 ;

{A1 + A 2+A4 +A5 }/4

6th Preference: Option 3

Deployment of Scores as criteria based on consistency of performance at class X and Class XII levels as well as in National

Level Aptitude and Advanced Tests

Equal weighting for aggregate as well as subject performance at class X and Class XII levels where ) 0.1X (normalized score at

20

class X in aggregate + normalized score at class X in subjects of

choice + normalized score at class XII + normalized score at class XII in subjects of choice); One third weighting of aptitude

score 0.3 A4 One third weighting of advanced score 0.3 A5 ;

0.1{ Normalized aggregate class X + normalized class X subject

score + Normalized class XII aggregate + Normalized class XII subject score} + 0.3 A3and 0.3 A5

Concluding Remarks

Complexities of developing alternative test schemes for deciding admission in

engineering programmes arise from a) diversity and b) scale of operations. The

committee is conscious of the ground realities and the challenge of suggesting

alternative methods for some test and evaluation systems, which have gained social

esteem and trust. Therefore, the committee has relied on scientific tools for gathering

evidence as much as possible and not on perception based approaches. The

committee is of the view that changes in paradigms are essential in this phase of

development of India.

One National Screening Test for admission into engineering programmes supported

by methodologies for factorizing scores obtained in school board examinations while

retaining their diversities seems the way forward. The committee does make a strong

case for such a change in paradigm.

Some options have been recommended. The committee has consciously adopted a

probabilistic rather than deterministic approach taking into account of complexities

involved in the exercise. The committee is also conscious of the fact that some of

the recommendations may have relevance outside the scope of admission into IITs

into other engineering programmes.

21

As a measure of abundant caution, the committee recommends selection from

among the six options by an expert committee taking into account of challenges of

convincing the society of the security of normalization methodologies of scores of

school board examinations developed by ISI on the basis of scientific tools.

Acknowledgement

The committee thanks the Ministry of Human Resource Development for the

opportunity to participate in this important National endeavor. Members of the

committee have consulted several experts and students individually and collectively.

Many experts from NIC, DST, IITs, ISI, Chennai Mathematical Institute and general

public participated in this study and in preparation of this draft report. Their support

and cooperation is acknowledged. The help of Dr. Parveen Arora, Scientist,

Department of Science and Technology in preparation of the report is gracefully

acknowledged.

---xxxxx----

22

Post Script

The draft report was presented to the IITs Council in the meeting held on 14th Sept,

2011 at IIT, Delhi. The Council has accepted and approved the principle enshrined in

the report.

The Council has authorized a small group of IIT Directors to meet and select the

preferred options while indicating the preference for Option 2 and 6.

The Committee recommended that an Internal Committee may analyse and select

the preferred options from among those recommended in this report.

There is a latent potential to enlarge the scope of this work and embark upon a

single National Test Scheme for admission into tertiary education after due

consultations with States and other experts from the academic sector.

While the challenges involved in formulating a National Test Scheme would be

enormous, the benefits to the next generation of learners could be significant. The

Committee recommends a further examination of the possibility for a national test

scheme for tertiary education after due consultations and examination.

ANNEXURES

Annexure - 1

22

Annexure 2

National Test Scheme for admission into Tertiary Education in India

Underlying Philosophy and Principles

Prepared by

T Ramasami

Committee for Designing National Test Scheme and

Secretary Department of Science and Technology Government of India

As a Document for Public Consultation

April 2011

Background

It is needless to state that provision of equal access to higher learning for all regions

of the country and all sections of population is both a social and economic necessity.

Right to education is an enunciated public policy of the Government of India. It is a

commitment of the nation to her citizens. It is not just a lofty principle nor is it merely

a legal provision.

To realise this underpinning philosophy, there is a need for an ecosystem that

connects the talent of the youth with equitable opportunity for tertiary education.

The document is prepared and placed in the public domain for making clear to the

citizens of the country the spirit and objective of designing and establishing a

National Testing System for selecting students for admission to tertiary education.

The current system based on multiples of competitive examination has no parallel in

other parts of the world. Most nations employ just one test for assessment of

scholastic aptitude instead of a plethora of evaluation tests.

The current selection systems have, no doubt, resulted in visible benefits. But, the

future of Indian youth might need a paradigm shift that ensures opportunity for larger

sections of the society.

The extreme level of competitiveness in the screening processes employed for

deciding access to professional education is not without its psychological or

sociological implications for the society. They do influence the mindset and

behavioural changes among the youth.

``Unity in diversity is the Indian brand value. Unification, while retaining the diversity

of educational systems in the country is the underlying strategy of the proposed

National Test Scheme. It is motivated by the principle of inclusion for a collaborative

excellence rather than exclusion through competitive excellence.

Recognising and respecting the realities of the current situation

The present system of multiple competitive examinations has emerged because the

demand-supply gap in access to tertiary is large and levels of excellence in

education centre are uneven.

It must be recognised that some competitive examinations, such as for example,

joint entrance examination conducted by the IITs have proved their process integrity

and gained global acclaim. IIT-JEE is a proven system that works. Any alternative

proposed should match its process integrity and robustness.

When millions of talented youngsters compete for less than 10,000 slots, the use of

high band filters may, perhaps, seem essential.

Nevertheless, even while it must be recognised that most high performers in such

competitive examinations are extremely talented, it is not clear as to whether IIT-JEE

type examinations are not missing a section of talent base, which should not missed.

Psychological and sociological dimensions of such testing and evaluation systems

that focus on extremely narrow-width high band-filters are not unimportant. The

unintended consequences of asymmetries in the types of clientele and challenges of

social behaviour mooted by such extremes cannot be discounted.

Vast majority of youth living in smaller towns and far flung places as well as

economically weaker segments of society are not able to join the competitive stream

today. For the youth, the future seems to be decided just by success or otherwise in

one competitive examination or other. The present system seems to be unwittingly

promoting a societal behaviour and a mind set towards differentiation rather than

integration.

What are the requirements for alternative models? What should a national test scheme aim at?

A National Test Scheme should ideally

1. evaluate the ability of the learners rather than their preparedness

2. reveal in a transparent, the latent potentials of the learners to match the

emerging opportunities in tertiary education sector and the economy

3. aim to provide for more proportional representation of various regions and

parent income levels

4. bridge the rural-urban divides

5. reduce the burden of education administration on faculty to ensure their

higher participation in research and academic roles

6. match the rigour and process integration of be best among the available

national test systems globally.

The process for the development of the national test scheme

Considering that education is a too important and a highly critical social endeavour

for any one to overlook the consequences of inadvertent errors in decision making, it

is necessary to engage as many stakeholders as possible in designing the system.

One can also not ignore that in the federal set up of the country the concurrent

responsibilities of the States and the Centre are respected and taken on board.

There are many state school boards which conduct their own examination for

assessing their students for issuing certificates. Shear diversity of these

examinations pose challenges of normalization and deciding eligibility to admission

in national centres of excellence.

The multiplicity of competitive examinations leading to duplicity of efforts may be a

direct result of diversities and complexities involved in the evaluation of inter-

comparison of scoring systems of various school boards. As a result, most elite

institutions disregard the performance in school examinations. They develop their

own competitive test methods and depend too heavily on ranks and scores.

Consistency of performance in different examinations is not considered necessary.

Performance in single examination starts to influence the entire career opportunities

leading to social implications.

National Test Scheme should find innovative ways of retaining the diversity of many

school boards and yet derive value from the test scores for making decisions by

educational institutions. Such an innovation seems possible and realistic. This would

however call for coordination and cooperation of many players. Hence consultation

and enrolment of many players are essential.

Consultation

A Six-stage consultation is planned. The planned process of consultation includes

those with

1. Public through opinion poll

2. States and school boards

3. Faculty and Professional Experts

4. Alumni for participation in path selection

5. Global experts in Evidence-based criteria selection and

6. Statistical experts for a Modeling Study for reconstruction of past Scenario

Research

Past data on school boards and several competitive examinations would be sourced

and analyzed for construction of past scenario. Evidence based and objective criteria

for assessing the inter-operability of test scores of various school boards would be

examined by accessing global expertise. Various statistical models would be

constructed and investigated for reliability and ease of implementation. A transparent

system of evaluation based on technology tools would be examined. The design

process envisages also research study involving a pilot test among a select group of

students and evaluation of various test models for minimizing number of

examinations but not rigor and challenge.

Sensitive Reporting of Results

It is proposed to consult experts in social sciences in devising a system of reporting

test results which ensures sufficient inputs to institutions for decision making and

selection of the candidates but not lead to negative psychological and sociological

outcomes on the youth.

Public Participation in Opinion Survey

It is proposed to seek public opinion on best models for National Test Schemes. On-

line opinion survey among the people of India is planned and survey would largely

seek public opinions on

For multi parametric grading system as against single test models and

Screening out as against selection strategies

Of current competitive examination systems.

The survey would seek information on responder profiles and opinion polls on

various models. It would also seek suggestions for alternative national test systems

and on risk mitigation strategies for implementation.

As a pragmatic approach, the survey time slot will remain open for specified periods

of time and the survey results would be made available to public after statistical

analysis.

Consultation and Cooperation with School Boards

Two stage consultations with school boards are planned. The first stage consultation

would seek data access and gathering, board enrolment, learning the concerns of

states and school boards and building social trust among the partners for

undertaking research on innovations for meeting the diversity challenges of school

board results for deriving inputs for national test scheme.

Second stage consultation would focus on Testing concepts, gaining ownership of

school boards, addressing the stated and unstated concerns of states, earning the

will of different school boards and ensuring process integrity.

Consultation with faculty of Elite Institutions and Opinion Leaders in Academic

Bodies

Consultation with faculty of some elite institutions and opinion leaders in academic

bodies is considered a necessary step in the development of a successful National

Test Scheme. This consultation process should take place at all stages but should

focus on a) learning about their concerns, b) gathering experience, c) debating

alternatives and d) building trust. The faculty should form an integral part of selection

of various approaches and lead to enrolment of the faculty as share holders.

At later stages the consultation should lead to a) addressing the concerns, b) testing

of hypothesis, c) convincing of antagonists, d) finalization of selected approaches

and e) enrolment of faculty in implementation work.

This step could be involved and complex. Without sufficient number of champions for

the National Test Scheme among the faculty of elite institutions and opinion leaders,

the scheme is not likely to succeed in an environment al ready there are several

competing examinations which have gained social trust and credibility. This step is

vital to the future success of the National Test Scheme.

Consultation with Alumni in selection of alternative paths for National Test

Scheme

It is widely believed in market force economy, brand building is all about building

consumer confidence through value propositions. Some of the elite schools in

engineering in the country have built their brand value through their alumni base.

Strength of Alumni base for some elite institutions is large. They also form strong

opinion builders in the modern society. Brand building involves projection of value

proposition to users differentiated from other products. Alumni of Elite institutions in

the country have effectively marketed their educational background through their

own differentiated performance. Is it is necessary to establish linkages with new

National Test Scheme with informed alumni if the new system should survive in the

market place.

A select group of alumni base of elite institutions in the country will be selected for

on-line consultation based on quality of responses during survey of public opinion.

Such an alumnus base will be used as sounding board for testing out various models

and suggestions at various stages but using IT enabled tools without the need for

direct face to face contact. At the stage of finalization, some select and quality

responders to the study will be invited for a consultation with the committee.

Research methodologies planned

Selection of evidence-based and objective criteria is critical to the acceptance of the

National Test Scheme by the stake holders and share holders. This would call for

application of rigorous research methodologies and open minded researchers. A

research team of experts would be assembled to work on a time bound manner and

provide evidence based criteria for development of National Testing Scheme. It

should be possible also to learn from the global experience of other countries in

designing and developing test schemes for admission into tertiary education.

What should the National Test Scheme deliver?

The National Test Scheme should deliver for the country a) well and carefully

designed testing systems, b) relative weightings of different inputs based on

research data, c) a transparent Implementation strategies, d) assessment of risk

factors complete with risk mitigation protocols and e) ability to gain social trust in the

new approach in limited number of years of implementation.

Delivery of desired goals is not possible without an acceptable level of stake holder

enrolment to the alternative models.

Concluding Remarks

We are extremely conscious of the dimensionality of the challenge of trying to fix

something that society trusts to work. It is a non-formidable challenge. Developing a

transparent testing system with water tight process integrity matching at the least IIT-

JEE level is not impossible, but is not likely to be easy. There is pluralistic perception

of the society perception. Such a diversity of perception could be bridged through

concrete scientific evidence and logic based decision support system, in our opinion.

It is true that this is not the first time in which a National Test Scheme had been

proposed. There have been similar attempts earlier without success. Some times

societal preferences travel backwards like lobster to take into account and

advantage of new opportunities which become available with development of tools

and technologies. This attempt is one such honest effort to reduce the burden of

competitive examinations on the youth of India. Psychological and sociological

impact of current systems of enrollment into tertiary education may demand a

change, if all the benefits of a system that works could be imbibed without sacrifice

of rigor and integrity. Let is attempt to address the challenge with an open mind.

Indias future needs such the combined wisdom of millions and not many individuals.

ANNEXURE - 3

Alternative to IIT-JEE, AIEEE and State JEEs

An Interim Report

Submitted by the Committee

Prof. Devang V. Khakhar Member

Prof. S. C. Saxena Member

Prof. M. S. Ananth Member

Prof. D. Acharya Chairman

September 1, 2010

Content

Sl. No. Title Page No.

Introduction 3-4

1. About Joint Entrance Examinations 4-5

2. Current Status of JEEs 5-6

3. Evolution of JEE Patterns 6

4. Variations among the JEEs and Admissions 6-7

5. Impact of JEEs in the present form 8

6. Expectations from JEEs 8-9

7. Analysis of JEEs and Suggestions for change 9-10

8. Recommended Alternative 10-11

9. The National Aptitude Test 11-12

10. Adjusted School Science Performance 12-14 Score and Ranking

11. Plus 2 Reforms 14-15

12. Some Deadline Dates 15

13. Expectations from Boards 15-16

14. National Testing Agency 16

15. Conclusion 16-17

16. MHRD Order for Committee Composition 18

17. Test Centre Design etc. 19-24

ALTERNATIVE TO IIT- JEE, AIEEE AND STATE JEEs

The following Committee was formed vide Order No. F.19-2/2010-TS.I dated, 8th March,

2010 (Copy given in Annexure-I) to explore possible alternatives to the present IIT-JEE,

AIEEE and other State Joint Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering

programmes in the country:

1. Prof. D. Acharya, Director, IIT Kharagpur - Chairman

2. Prof. M. S. Ananth, Director, IIT Madras - Member

3. Prof. Devang V. Khakhar, Director, IIT Bombay - Member

4. Prof. S. C. Saxena, Director, IIT Roorkee - Member

The Committee also had the mandate of streamlining and rationalizing other examinations

such GATE, JMET, JAM etc. The Committee was advised to invite / associate Chairman

CBSE, COBSE officials and Chairman CCB for AIEEE.

The Committee met six times:

(1) On 16th March, 2010 in IIT Madras. Chairman, COBSE, COBSE officials, Chairman

CCB, AIEEE, JEE Chairman of all IITs were present. The Committee took cognisance

of the report of the IIT-JEE reform committee set up by the Directors in 2007 with Prof.

V. G. Idichandy, Deputy Director, IIT Madras as Convenor and the findings of Prof. A. N.

Samanta, Chairman, JEE, IIT Kharagpur in 2010. Prof. M. Anandakrishnan, former VC,

Anna University, shared the experience of Tamil Nadu in the abolition of JEE in the state

and admission based on the normalized +2 results with the Committee. The Committee

discussed the JEEs and their impact on school education in general and technical

education in particular and prepared a document suggesting alternatives.

(2) Four different consultations were held with the stakeholders in different zones.

In Kolkata (East Zone) on May 17, 2010

In Delhi (North Zone) on May 19, 2010

In Hyderabad (South Zone) on May 25, 2010 and

In Mumbai (West Zone) on May 31, 2010

The stakeholders included the Vice Chancellors / Directors of the Universities,

Secretaries of Technical Education and Directors of NITs and one of the Directors of

IISER. The MHRD was represented by the Additional Secretary and a Director in some

of the consultations. While the Chairman of IIT Delhi participated in Delhi consultation,

the Chairman of IIT Kanpur participated in both IIT Madras and IIT Hyderabad

consultations. The Directors and senior colleagues of IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay

participated in the consultation meetings held in these Institutions. Director IIT

Hyderabad participated in the consultation held in Hyderabad. Representatives of the

Directors of IIT Patna, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar and Ropar participated in Kolkata

consultation.

(3) The outcome of these consultations was discussed by the Committee on 15th June in

Kolkata and a draft proposal was prepared. The proposal was then circulated in IITs for

wider consultations.

(4) The Directors of the IITs met in IIT Kharagpur on 11th July 2010 to deliberate on the

proposal and arrived at a consensus on the proposal on a subject test for select few and

on making the merit list available to all those Institutes who have research and

innovation focussed education.

(5) The proposal was discussed with the members of COBSE in Delhi on August 27, 2010

to ensure the full support and cooperation of School Boards in bringing in desired reform

in Plus 2 education.

1. Joint Entrance Examinations

Joint Entrance Examinations are being conducted to admit students to a group of

Institutions offering degree programmes in Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy,

Architecture, Management, and Computer Applications. Students from various Boards at

XII level whose curriculum, syllabus and standards vary appear at All India, State and

Institution level JEEs. Each JEE prescribes its own syllabus which may be different from

or similar to a Boards syllabus. Each JEE serves as a common base to evaluate

students from various Boards and rank them in the order of their test score.

The JEEs differ in terms of the syllabus and the method of examination and evaluation.

This calls for extra preparation and coaching. The performance in the JEE is the sole

basis of ranking. Other inputs such as XII performance, aptitude, teachers feedback etc.

to judge the merit and suitability of a student are conspicuously absent in the admission

process.

The Common Entrance Examination (CEE) for admission to IITs in 1961 evaluated

students on a common curriculum and syllabus. CEE did away with the multiplicity of

tests, minimised costs and inconveniences to the students. The test format was designed

to evaluate the higher analytical skills and ability to use combination of concepts in

solving problems. Test of English, General Knowledge, Engineering Drawing etc. helped

to evaluate the communication, aptitude and general awareness of the students. The

students were ranked based on CEE Score and Institution Branch of study allocation

was done as per the choice of the student and availability of seats.

Institutions like IITs used the All India Rank. The State conducted JEEs used the State

level rank for admission to State level Institutions. AIEEE used both All India and State

level ranks to facilitate admission to Institutes having both State and Central quota. Other

Institutions also used these ranks to admit students as per their requirement. All JEEs

also prepared ranks category-wise (General, SC, ST, OBC, Female and Physically

Challenged etc.) to facilitate category-wise admission to Institutions.

With the increase in number of Institutions and number of candidates appearing at JEE,

pen and paper mode of examination gave way to answering Multiple Choice Questions

and their evaluation through use of OMR sheets.

2. Current Status

The IIT JEE is considered to be one of the toughest examinations. Nearly 500,000

students appear at IIT JEE and compete for about 10,000 seats. The number in terms of

both the candidates and the available seats is likely to grow by 10% every year.

Nearly 11 lakhs students appear in the AIEEE for admission to about 20 NITs, some of

the Deemed Universities and over 100 Private Colleges. This number is also expected to

grow by about 10 percent a year.

For admission to State level Government and Private Engineering Institutions, State level

JEE is conducted, practically in every State except Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu has dropped

State level JEE and admits students to their Engineering Institutions based on normalized

+2 marks. Though a student now appears at 3-5 Entrance Examinations to get an

admission into a Technical Institution, the total number of students appearing at one Joint

Entrance Examination or the other is around 25 lakhs.

A student is offered admission to the Institution and discipline of his / her choice based on

his / her rank. The rank of the students in the JEE is determined by his / her score in the

JEE. Some JEEs prescribe an eligibility criteria based on +2 examination result. For

instance, IIT JEE prescribes 60% mark for General candidates and 55% mark for SC/ST

candidates. Some State JEEs also insist on minimum of 40-45% mark in +2 Examination.

Some States like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh gives 50% and 25% weightages

respectively to the +2 performance in preparation of the Merit List.

The number of students appearing in the JEEs in many States is less than the number of

available seats. Therefore, the qualifying mark for inclusion in the Merit List of the Joint

Entrance Examinations even goes down to below zero! Some of the States such as

Bihar, Jharkhand and North-Eastern States do not have many Government or Private

Institutions. Students of these States appear at either AIEEE or State Level JEEs of other

States to seek admission to Technical Institutions.

The JEEs are limited to multiple choice questions in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics

(PCM) for Engineering or Bio-Science (PCB) for Medicine and Pharmacy,. For admission

to Architecture, in addition to a test in PCM, one has to take Aptitude Test. For lateral

level admission to Engineering, the syllabus for the JEEs is limited to that of the discipline

specific diploma programmes.

3. Evolution of JEE Patterns

As noted earlier, the Common Entrance Examination was started in 1961 for admission

to 4 IITs for nearly 700 intake at both First Year and Second Year level. Nearly 15,000

candidates appeared. CEE used long answer, problem-solving, manual evaluation format

to search for talent. In the early 60s, the name of the examination was changed to the

JEE. In the late 70s Engineering Drawing and General Knowledge were dropped and in

1988 English was dropped. Coaching for JEE started in 70s. The perceived competition

between coaching classes and paper setters made the examination more tougher and

the students became more dependent on coaching. IIT JEE remained a low scoring

tough examination. To cope with the increase in number of candidates, two stage JEE

was introduced in 2000: an objective Screening Test followed by a Main paper that was

evaluated only for those who qualified in the Screening Test. Objective testing alone was

introduced in 2006.

With expansion in Engineering Colleges JEEs at State level started in late 80s. The

AIEEE was introduced in 2002. RECs / NITs opted for AIEEE while deemed Universities

and Colleges opted for AIEEE for some percentage of their seats. Multiple Choice Test is

being followed in AIEEE and State JEEs from the beginning. Most JEEs have focused

only on testing PCM or PCB neglecting other attributes.

4. Variations among the JEEs and Admissions

The country has large number of Institutions with widely varying capabilities, focus and

standards. Institutes like IITs and IISER are on the top of the ladder. These Institutions

offer research and innovation focused education that requires higher analytical abilities

and problem solving skills using multiple concepts. Therefore the IIT-JEE tests higher

analytical abilities and concurrent use of multiple concepts even from multiple disciplines

in solving problems. Though the syllabus is at the +2 level, the test is well above the XII

examinations. It is considered to be one of the toughest examinations and a time-tested

filter of talent for admission to the IITs. It has earned a well-deserved reputation for

fairness and for the integrity of those organizing the examination.

NITs and several Government and Private Institutions offer quality technical education.

They admit students through the AIEEE. AIEEE tests the students on clear

understanding and application of concept covered at standard 12 level in PCM. The

syllabus used for the AIEEE is primarily the CBSE syllabus with suitable modifications to

take care of the needs of other Boards.

The State level JEEs are used to admit students to the large number of State level

Government and Private Institutions. The tests are designed based on the State Board

syllabus for PCMB.

For admission to B. Pharm Courses, the States conduct Joint Entrance Examination

along with the JEE for Engineering Courses. For B. Pharm, normally the States conduct

tests on Physics, Chemistry and Bio-Science. However, for admission to Pharmacy

Courses, IITs conduct test on Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Deficiencies in Bio-

Science is made up through bridge courses.

In addition to the above at State level JEE, Entrance Examinations are conducted for

lateral entry of Diploma holders in Engineering and Architecture to Degree programmes.

Here, the Test syllabus is same as the State level Diploma syllabus.

For admission to many leading Institutions in Medicine and Central quota on State level

Medical Colleges, CBSE conducts a Medical Entrance Test. The test is on PCB and the

syllabus is CBSE XII level plus. This test is considered to be very tough requiring

extensive memorization and coaching to crack.

JEE Merit List is used as the sole criteria not only for admission to an Institution but also

for the allocation of the branch of study to a student in that Institution. Institution and

branch allocation requires assignment of distinct ranks to individuals. The number and

difficulty level of the questions that have to be answered in a limited time have been

increased to make the tests more discriminating. Bunching is minimized by the design of

the questions and by the use of several tier tie-breaking rules.

5. Impact of JEEs in the present form

Since the success in JEEs is the sole criteria for admission to many technical Institutions, the focus of the better students has shifted from +2 Science education

in School to Coaching for the JEEs.

School attendance has become a casualty.

Many coaching classes concentrate on teaching students tricks that help crack Multiple Choice Questions.

Some students suffer from burn-out syndrome; some think they have arrived just because they cracked the JEE; some who failed to get admission to the disciplines

of their choice feel frustrated.

JEEs are urban centric and rural students without access to coaching fail to qualify.

Girl students fare worse than boys in the JEEs despite their superior Board performance.

Dearth of quality Institutions has increased the competition for admission to the few available ones beyond desirable limits.

Increase in number of students has led to Multiple Choice ORS based examination, which is pedagogically not as effective as the long answer format.

6. Expectations from Joint Entrance Examinations

A student seeking admission to Engineering, Pharmacy, Architecture etc., has to have

(1) good knowledge and clear understanding of Science subjects and (2) reasonable

level of intelligence, analytical reasoning skills, general awareness and communication

skills.

Joint Entrance Examinations currently assess the students in the former. Later

competencies are not tested. There will be no need for the JEE in the present form if we

have (i) only one Board in the country, and (ii) we conduct examinations and have

assessment in fair and transparent manner. Present form of JEE in State or AIEEE level

only assesses the performance on a common base through one time test. The Board

Performance in the subjects is not taken into consideration.

Exception is the JEE conducted by IITs where one tests the higher analytical and

problem solving skills using multiple concepts. Such skills are essential to admission to

the Institutions having research and innovation focus in their education. Therefore, IIT

JEE test items are distinctly different from the other JEEs.

For vast majority of the Institutions who focus on producing engineers for routine jobs in

industry and government, a good knowledge and understanding of the basic science

concepts is enough. A good XII examination and evaluation system should be able to

assess the same. A method to reduce variations from Board to Board and equalization of

the score should suffice.

A test needs to be organized to assess the second component as they are not currently

being evaluated at the School level.

For research and innovation focused Institutions in Science and Engineering, an add on

test is essential to test the higher competency level in Science subjects of Physics,

Chemistry and Mathematics. Similarly Architecture will require a special Aptitude Test.

7. Analysis of JEEs and Suggestions for Change

An analysis of the performance of the relatively few students admitted to the IITs over

the last decade in the IIT-JEE and subsequently in the IITs ( 2 tier JEE was conducted

between 2000 and 2005 and a single objective-type examination has been conducted

since 2006) leads the following broad and somewhat expected conclusions:

There is a strong correlation between the Standard X and Standard XII marks and CGPA including the final performance in IIT.

Both AIR and percentage marks at Standard XII are better correlated to the CGPA only upto the end of the first year.

There is poor correlation between AIR and the CGPA of GE and OBC candidates from 2nd year onwards.

Percentage of marks at XII level better explains group performance in later years.

Students with high AIR (less than 1000) have higher score at XII level while aberrations are more prominent at lower AIRs.

An analysis of the performance of students in the screening and main tests of IIT

JEE between 2000 and 2005 showed a considerable overlap between the sets of top

5000 students although their ranks within the sets showed little correlation. Hence it

would be expedient to settle for a completely objective single examination.

The studies recommended (some already implemented)

Screening based on normalized Board scores at Standard X and/or Standard XII and Multiple Choice examination replacing the two stage JEE from 2006.

Entry barrier to be raised to 60% in the +2 examinations.

Factors, other than the Standard XII marks and AIR based on PCM testing, such as raw intelligence, logical reasoning, aptitude, comprehension and general knowledge

need to be considered.

Need to factor in school performance more significantly into the selection process.

The last two recommendations are applicable to all JEEs. From the discussions held by

this committee the following additional desirable features of the admission process were

identified:

Decision based on one time test needs to be re-examined. Opportunities to improve must be built in.

Students must be relieved of the pressure of multiple JEEs. Currently a student appears on an average at 5 JEEs all within a few days of the Board Examinations.

Influence of coaching for JEE needs to be minimised.

Urban-rural and gender bias has to be eliminated or atleast minimised.

The objective type of examination lends itself to undue influence of coaching. The conventional pen and paper examination with well designed long and problem

solving oriented questions should be revived by keeping numbers in any JEE within

reasonable limits.

JEEs, especially the IIT JEE, have become a huge money spinning activity for coaching centres with attendant undesirable consequences.

8. Recommended Alternative

Scores in a well-designed National Aptitude Test (NAT) should be used to capture

parameters of interest such as raw intelligence, aptitude, general awareness,

comprehension and written communication skills.

NAT should not require extensive preparation and coaching. The questions in the

test should be so designed that it would not require inputs beyond the +2 level.

Ideally candidates should be able to take NAT any time in a year. One can also have

the option to improve over (say) 3 attempts. The test could be an online test and the

highest of the 3 scores shall be considered.

Standard XII Scores normalized appropriately across Boards, considering PCM for

Engineering, Science and Architecture and PCB for Medicine and Pharmacy should

be used to capture the School Science Performance (SSP).

A Composite Weighted Performance (CWP) Score may be computed as follows:

CWP Score = X (SSP Score) + (1-X) (NAT Score)

An X value of 2/3 is recommended to begin with. This may be revised after a few

years experience.

There is wide variation in requirements and standards of admitting Institutions. While

CWP Score should be compulsory for all. Some Institutions whose curriculum and

syllabus is research and innovation oriented require students with higher analytical

skills and problem solving competence using multiple concepts. Such students only

can contribute effectively to research and innovation. An add on test need to be

conducted in order to meet the specific needs of such Institutions of National

Importance and Universities. In these Institutions the CWP Score should be used as

a screening criterion to reduce the number of candidates taking the add on test to

about 1 lakh. The students qualified in such a National Test should be available for

admission to Science and Engineering programmes. To encourage bright students

to go for higher education and research in Science and Engineering, the

Government may also consider giving scholarships to the Add On Test qualified

candidates similar to INSPIRE scholarship for education in Science in leading

Institutions. The National Add On Test may be named as National Engineering and

Science Test (NEST).

9. The National Aptitude Test

The test has to be a online test that can be taken by a candidate any time. A candidate must get a chance to improve, thus may have maximum of 3 chances.

To handle about 5 millions on line test, several test centres of about 500 in number have to be created.

Each Centre should have its own server, thin clients, printers, storage devices, security and internet connectivity. Power back up has to be ensured.

Mock testing facility should also be made available with the Test Centres. The same, however, could be made available online.

The test system has to be designed and test items are to be created to make sure that large number of unique test with identical difficulty level could be administered.

This will eliminate chance of malpractice. Instant evaluation and reporting of score

have to be done.

To have necessary credibility, the test system has to be created, administered and managed by the Government through a statutory agency.

The facilities thus created could be used for other tests such as GATE, CAT, PMTS and UPSC for their preliminaries.

The credibility of National Aptitude Test has to be high. Active involvement of

Institutions like IITs is required at initial stage to make the test credible.

Implementation of the scheme requires broad consensus building and commitment of the State Government and Boards to improve School education, examination and

evaluation system. They must also adhere to strict time schedule for publication of

result in a form that can be used by the Central Agency and admitting Institutions.

Central Government must commit to the creation of Test facilities, consensus building through CABE and giving statutory status to the credible Agency.

To organize 5 million tests a year, 25,000 test seats are to be created to conduct one test of three hours a day for 20 days in a month. The number of tests could be

doubled or even tripled to take care of the peak load. Each Test Centre should have

50 test seats and 20 mock test seats. Thus there will be 500 Test Centres.

Depending on the load, one city may have several Centres. Annexure II gives typical configuration of a Test Centre. Designing, validating and administration of

NAT is crucial to the success of the system. Annexure III gives their salient features.

10. Adjusted School Science Performance Score and Ranking

The country has 30 Boards for conducting examinations and evaluation of performance of the students in the Science subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and

Biology. Currently, the performance evaluation across the Boards vary considerably as they

differ in their curricula, syllabi, the setting of the question papers, the conduct of

examinations and the evaluation of answered scripts. The variation in performance

evaluation can be minimized by adopting a common curriculum and syllabus, by using

common format for the question papers, by developing model answers and by adopting

model evaluation schemes.

Despite all the above steps, it is not possible to completely eliminate the differences

in the performance evaluation across the Boards. It is, therefore, essential to adjust the

performance evaluation in Science subjects of the students from various Boards by

comparison with a reference Board (hereafter referred to as the Anchor Board) using the

concept of equivalence. The score in a Board and the score in the Anchor Board are

equivalent if they represent the same relative position in the group of examinees. This will

call for adjusting the individual Boards scores by equating them to the Anchor score.

Choosing the entire population to represent the Anchor Board is the best impartial choice.

i.e The Anchore Board will include all the Boards. The following linear equating scheme can

then be used for normalization.

If X represents a score in a Board and Y represents a score in the Anchor Board,

then X and Y are equivalent in a group of examinees when

Y mean (Y) = X mean (X) SD (Y) SD (X)

where, mean (Y) = the mean of performance in a subject in the Anchor Board

mean (X) = the mean of performance in the same subject in a Board

SD (Y) = Standard Deviation of performance of all students across in the

Anchor Board in a subject

SD (X) = Standard Deviation of performance of all students in a Board in

the same subject

Adjusted (X) = SD(Y) X + mean(Y) SD(Y) mean(X) = Y SD(X) SD(X)

The School Science Performance Score will be based on the adjusted scores in the

individual subjects. The performance in each subject could be measured in a scale of 0

200. Thus, the School performance will be measured in a scale of 0 600. As the Adjusted

Score is unlikely to be an integer form, we may compute upto 3 places of decimal for ranking

purposes.

The score in the National Aptitude Test (NAT) may be obtained on a scale of 0 300.

The Adjusted SSP score should be added to the scale of NAT score. This will give 2/3

weightage to SSP and 1/3 to NAT scores.

Ranking of the students will be based on the Composite Weighted Performance

Score (CWPS). The choice of Scale and computation upto 3 places of decimal will reduce

bunching to a great extent. However, some bunching will occur as the number of students

involved is large. In such cases the ties can often be broken by using such tie breakers as (i)

SSP score, (ii) NAT score in Mathematics, (iii) NAT score in Physics, and (iv) NAT score in

Chemistry. Despite such tie breakers, two candidates with the same CWPS will be given the

same rank.

11. Plus 2 Reforms

The Committee felt it was advisable to articulate a few necessary reforms in the +2

system in this context:

Common curriculum for PCMB across all Boards should be introduced. (According to COBSE, most of the Boards will implement common curriculum and syllabus in

Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Bioscience by 2012).

Efforts need to be made to ensure free and fair examination and evaluation at the +2 level in all the Boards.

The Board examination results could be brought to a meaningful common base if all Boards use the same question paper for examination and common model answer for

evaluation. This can facilitate use of raw SSP scores for computation of the CWP

Score. Till then normalized scores can be used to compute CWPS.

An agency to conduct NAT online test should be created. Necessary infrastructure has to be created to conduct test for about 5 million candidates. The physical

infrastructure shall include servers, thin client, printers, broadband connectivity, standby generators, security etc. Adequate administrative support infrastructure has

to be provided.

The availability of Board result in time is critical to the success of the alternative. It was agreed that +2 results could be made available by May 1 in all Boards by 2012.

The issue of unique identity of a candidate was discussed. It was generally agreed, the Unique Identification Scheme would be operational by then and each candidate

would have a UID number.

The COBSE Members have agreed to the above. They, however, require the support of the States.

12. Some Deadline Dates

Standard XII results should be available by 1st of May.

All India Rank based on CWP Score shall be prepared for all candidates by 10th of May.

All India Rank Certificates shall be made available category-wise : General, SC, ST, OBC, Male, Female and Physically Challenged to all candidates by end of May. This

rank shall be used for admitting students to Universities and Institutions who admit

students based on All India Rank.

State and Category-wise Rank Certificates shall be made available for admission of candidates to State Government and Private Colleges to all candidates by 31st of

May.

Based on CWP Scores candidates shortlisted for add-on test for admission to Institutions of national importance and Universities focusing on research/innovation

shall be available by 10th of May.

These add-on tests shall be held by the end of May and the Rank based on the test shall be available by 20th of June.

Online counseling shall start by 1st of July and be completed by 15th of July. Online counseling can be done at State level for State and Private Colleges and centrally

for admission to IITs and NITs based on CWP Score.

13. Expectations from Boards

1. Uniform Curriculum and Syllabus for PCMB. 2. Common structure of Question Paper.

3. Fair conduct of Examination.

4. Model Answer.

5. Model Evaluation Scheme.

6. Allocation of UID to all students admitted to 11th Class.

7. All references to Performance based on UID.

8. Separation of internal and Board Examination Scores. 9. Result Publication by May 1. 10. Common Software for result preparation and processing. This may be developed

and distributed to all Boards and portability.

11. Passing of raw scores to the Testing Agency.

12. Encouraging the students to take more than once NAT over two years i.e. 11th and

12th

14. National Testing Agency

(1) National Testing Agency is to be created by an Act of Parliament. Only a statutory

agency can ensure independence, transparency in testing of the magnitude that is

being envisaged. It will have the necessary credibility and confidence of the people. To

start with, NTA will conduct NAT and prepare State level and National level merit list

for admission to the Science, Engineering and Pharmacy programmes. The same

agency could prepare merit list for medicine. Later it may be empowered to prepare

merit for other examinations such as GATE, CAT, MAT etc.

(2) The Agency should be run by a Commission with few members of high academic

stature and a Chairman.

(3) Creation, running and maintenance of Test Centres will be the responsibility of the

Commission.

(4) The Commission will have a unit to develop testing plans and test items. Testing and

validation of test items will be the responsibility of the unit.

(5) A research unit attached to the Commission will be responsible for generating several

unique test sets with equal difficulty levels besides validating and equalization of test

scores.

(6) The Commission will have a Technology Support Unit to take care of IT needs of the

Test Centres, creation of Data Centre, Networking of the Test Centres etc.

15. Conclusion

This Interim Report gives the views expressed after wide consultation with the

stakeholders on evolution of an alternative to IIT-JEE, AIEEE and State JEEs.

Members of COBSE requested for State level consultations to ensure smooth

implementation of teaching, examination and evaluation re